Should there be discretion on Delay Repay thresholds?

[AlterEgo]

The ticket. Why should I have to bother buying it if the railway is only getting £4 out of it? Can't they just suck up the loss and save me the bother?

That's a really daft comparison. That's like saying "well if the teain can be 29 minutes late and I don't get any money then I can turn up 29 minutes for my train and just board the next one on my Advance".

I totally get that things don't happen just because members of this forum think they ought to, but the trouble with a de minimis principle - or any principle - is there's absolutely no reason why anybody ought to accept it if it's one-sided and thus manifestly unreasonable.

It's not really that unreasonable, though if it changed you would simply have to accept it. Have you tried getting on the date of your flexible ticket since the refund rule change?

The silent majority to whom you seem to be appealing already don't claim small sums.

Almost certainly they don't.

You may be right that the people who do create paperwork by claiming small sums are not the sort of people who would be put off travelling by rail by your proposed rule, but they would fight it and they would have a point if the railway insists on retaining the right to fine or prosecute people for evading less than £5 at a a time in fares.

They wouldn't fight it. They would just, well, have to accept that's what the customer contract now says, and probably a handful would waste more of their time entertaining themselves by submitting letters before action. A niche pursuit but the ardent time waster is an occupational hazard in most lines of business and not a customer type one builds policy and brand around.

The fixed cost of the bureaucracy has to exist anyway for the claims that do meet your arbitrary threshold for being worth processing, and any marginal bureaucratic cost of scrutinising piddly claims could be avoided by just paying them without checking them

No, that's not a good idea, akin to the idea that passengers on short trips shouldn't get their tickets checked because "who cares really" and "the guard gets paid anyway".

Personally I'm not going to be told I shouldn't be claiming a couple of quid by an industry that will quite happily go back and forth with me by email 6 or 7 times and trouble the Rail Ombudsman for the sake of a couple of quid. Even when they are quite obviously in the wrong.

You are the classic case. Nothing will change to meet your demands. You have no goodwill, there is no need to expend further effort on you as a customer. You travel, you dislike the company, you travel again.

maybe you can see why it wouldn't go down awfully well if the solution to all the admin was just to stop me claiming anything at all?

Why should I, or more importantly, the railway, care?

The passenger is getting their pants pulled down anyway by plenty of recent changes which disbenefit them. The idea there are strong political consequences for this under a nationalised system is fantastical. I have argued against nationalised railways on the forum before to plenty of booing, but I'm right - the nationalised railway in Britain's contemporary political system (and its financial situation) is a bad idea which leads to even less consideration of power-user wants and needs. The railway's political survival depends on its infrastructure integrity and service reliability, the latter of which in particular has withered away and which will require ever more money to fix. Trimming the edges by making changes to stuff like refund rights is just a start for how the railway will fund its continuing relevance.

 

[Watershed]

If you make it continuous, you add complexity and confusion, and put in conflict points at every point of the journey.

I hardly think so. c2c already offer automatic Delay Repay on a minute-by-minute basis for their smartcard holders, for delays of 2+ minutes.

A system where you get X amount of compensation per minute's delay (or more realistically, a certain percentage of the ticket, e.g. 1%) makes a lot more sense than having arbitrary cutoffs in my mind.

 

[redreni]

I hardly think so. c2c already offer automatic Delay Repay on a minute-by-minute basis for their smartcard holders, for delays of 2+ minutes.

A system where you get X amount of compensation per minute's delay (or more realistically, a certain percentage of the ticket, e.g. 1%) makes a lot more sense than having arbitrary cutoffs in my mind.

Yes, I agree completely.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Aug 2026 ==

That's a really daft comparison. That's like saying "well if the teain can be 29 minutes late and I don't get any money then I can turn up 29 minutes for my train and just board the next one on my Advance".

No it isn't, it's the application of the same principle to a comparable case. Either a sum of less than £5 being due to one person by another is worth worrying about or it isn't.

It's not really that unreasonable, though if it changed you would simply have to accept it. Have you tried getting on the date of your flexible ticket since the refund rule change?

Yes, if course, but now you're making a slightly different argument that for whatever reason (you haven't said why) passenger rights either should be or inevitably will be curtailed, which is subtly different to saying people should be compensated if they're delayed by at least the threshold amount of time but that sums under £5 shouldn't have to be paid because it's too fiddly.

No, that's not a good idea,

No, I agree. Nor is your £5 minimum compensation threshold.

akin to the idea that passengers on short trips shouldn't get their tickets checked because "who cares really" and "the guard gets paid anyway".

I don't think it is akin to that although, as I say, it's not something I'm really arguing for, it's an application of a de minimis principle the railway does not apply to fares and ticketing or (for the time being at least), to compensation, but which you want to make into a one-sided principle which the railway would not accept itself but would apply to passengers.

You are the classic case. Nothing will change to meet your demands. You have no goodwill, there is no need to expend further effort on you as a customer. You travel, you dislike the company, you travel again.


Why should I, or more importantly, the railway, care?

The passenger is getting their pants pulled down anyway by plenty of recent changes which disbenefit them. The idea there are strong political consequences for this under a nationalised system is fantastical. I have argued against nationalised railways on the forum before to plenty of booing, but I'm right - the nationalised railway in Britain's contemporary political system (and its financial situation) is a bad idea which leads to even less consideration of power-user wants and needs. The railway's political survival depends on its infrastructure integrity and service reliability, the latter of which in particular has withered away and which will require ever more money to fix. Trimming the edges by making changes to stuff like refund rights is just a start for how the railway will fund its continuing relevance.

Query whether trimming the delay repay pot is really going to make a significant contribution, even alongside other measures, to compensating for HMT not wanting to fund anything? We've got the PM talking today about cutting fares, so...

 

[Llanigraham]

I've often wondered if trains that are close to the threshold get priority?

The amount of trains that have arrived 29 or 59 minuets late makes you wonder of staff give them priority over more heavily delayed services to save delay repay money.

It could just be coincidence but it does seem to happen.

Signallers don't know and probably are too busy to worry about it.

 

[Llanigraham]

Train operating companies, ahem, "fudging" the numbers to classify a 31 minute delay as 29.5 minutes to avoid a payout

How can they "fudge" the arrival times when they are recorded automatically by a system that the TOC's have no access to?

 

[NeakPed]

A system where you get X amount of compensation per minute's delay (or more realistically, a certain percentage of the ticket, e.g. 1%) makes a lot more sense than having arbitrary cutoffs in my mind.

Until someone starts arguing over whether it was 6 late or 8 1/2 late due to the doors not opening within 30nanoseconds of coming to a stand

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I don't think they're a good reason to put an arbitrary limit on delay repay, to a child £1 can be a lot of money.
While an adult would consider the £14.02 I got over my 2 years of college very little, it was a nice little boost to my pocket money.

Nowadays I mostly go for Northern's complementary tickets, and I wish I'd known about them earlier.

 

[py_megapixel]

I can turn up 29 minutes for my train and just board the next one on my Advance".

Sounds like an excellent customer friendly policy idea. Hopefully it will be implemented soon.

 

[Watershed]

Until someone starts arguing over whether it was 6 late or 8 1/2 late

There is much less incentive to appeal a claim if what's at stake is a few pennies for the incremental minutes' compensation rather than several pounds, as is typically the case with the current banded system of compensation.

The current system has exactly the same root problem though, so this wouldn't be a new issue.

due to the doors not opening within 30nanoseconds of coming to a stand

Train OTMR systems collect huge amounts of data about train performance etc. so it would hardly be out of the question to join this up with the onboard internet connection to get a more accurate picture of the actual arrival times. Many modern trains already do things along these lines, for example the 80x fleets provide live maintenance data back to Hitachi, so it would hardly be rocket science.

The fact that the industry currently relies on little more than educated guesses when deciding how much to pay is hardly optimal. Some people end up overpaid, which is money the industry could save. Others are wrongly denied or underpaid compensation, causing a further loss of goodwill (for those who have any) and more importantly a cost to process the inevitable appeal.

 

[AlterEgo]

No it isn't, it's the application of the same principle to a comparable case. Either a sum of less than £5 being due to one person by another is worth worrying about or it isn't.

Either being 29 minutes late is worth worrying about or it isn't. See how we can both waste time with this dead end?

Yes, if course, but now you're making a slightly different argument that for whatever reason (you haven't said why) passenger rights either should be or inevitably will be curtailed

I have said why passenger rights are going to be curtailed further later on in the post. This will happen and we all know more unwelcome changes are coming.

which is subtly different to saying people should be compensated if they're delayed by at least the threshold amount of time but that sums under £5 shouldn't have to be paid because it's too fiddly.

Because the railway is looking to save money. This proposal:

- prevents a tranche of frequent claimants claiming small amounts of money which are expensive to process
- the money does not anyway recognise the inconvenience caused, does not engender goodwill nor alter the perception of failed service
- delay repay paid by cash/card does no longer engender repeat business and is almost never cited by passengers as one of their major reasons for travelling
- is expensive to process and in the case of disputes (common with this demographic) costs more staff time and further resource

I don't think it is akin to that although, as I say, it's not something I'm really arguing for, it's an application of a de minimis principle the railway does not apply to fares and ticketing or (for the time being at least), to compensation, but which you want to make into a one-sided principle which the railway would not accept itself but would apply to passengers.

Yeah that's what I'm proposing. No different to how some other (and very good!) railway systems work, by setting minimum values on claims around the same amount.

Query whether trimming the delay repay pot is really going to make a significant contribution, even alongside other measures, to compensating for HMT not wanting to fund anything? We've got the PM talking today about cutting fares, so...

Oh a politician is talking about the railways! How do you reckon that will play out long term? A smaller fare box and more passenger subsidy? Surely not!

I'm really sorry to say that the expansion of DR was entirely political. The big powerful government making those nasty private companies pay YOU money when you get delayed. Now it's the government in full control you will find they are not very keen to have such loose purse strings. You will get a little nibble here and there like railcard tinkering but in ten years passengers will still be paying more for their fares.

 

[Amaranthe]

This thread has reminded me I have a couple of 29 3/4 delays to claim for from my recent North West Rover trip. 1 TPE and 1 Avanti. Will be interesting to see if they meet the 30 mins threshold or not.

 

[styles]

These are completely unrelated to Delay Repay. Being provided with overnight accommodation has not bearing on it, other than confirming that the delay is over 60 or 120 minutes as applicable.

Indeed they're not Delay Repay, but they are part of the overall compensation package a passenger may expect in case of severe delays/cancellations. If GBR is going to deliver any benefits it may as well be standardising and consolidating things like compensation payments so passengers aren't bounced around different operators or left guessing what they can claim for before deciding to grab an Uber or book into a hotel.

 

[Watershed]

Indeed they're not Delay Repay, but they are part of the overall compensation package a passenger may expect in case of severe delays/cancellations. If GBR is going to deliver any benefits it may as well be standardising and consolidating things like compensation payments so passengers aren't bounced around different operators or left guessing what they can claim for before deciding to grab an Uber or book into a hotel.

The rights to alternative transport/hotels already exist and apply equally to all TOCs. The issue is with the railway's frequent refusal to comply with those rights. Without a fundamental culture change and/or ORR enforcement action for the licence breach that a failure to comply represents, I cannot see anything changing.

 

[AlterEgo]

The rights to alternative transport/hotels already exist and apply equally to all TOCs. The issue is with the railway's frequent refusal to comply with those rights. Without a fundamental culture change and/or ORR enforcement action for the licence breach that a failure to comply represents, I cannot see anything changing.

What has ORR actually said about this? Anything at all? The complete ignorance by some TOCs of PRO and the NRCoT obligations is bizarre.

 

[Sonic1234]

I wouldn't trust the "OnTrak" staff you get at stations to know what any of that is.

 

[Watershed]

What has ORR actually said about this? Anything at all? The complete ignorance by some TOCs of PRO and the NRCoT obligations is bizarre.

When I raised the matter with them, giving them multiple examples of brazen breaches, they simply didn't bother to respond. Rather indicative of their interest (or lack thereof) in such unimportant things as consumer rights. Far more important that there's competition in station catering, you see...

 

[NeakPed]

There is much less incentive to appeal a claim if what's at stake is a few pennies for the incremental minutes' compensation rather than several pounds, as is typically the case with the current banded system of compensation.

The current system has exactly the same root problem though, so this wouldn't be a new issue.


Train OTMR systems collect huge amounts of data about train performance etc. so it would hardly be out of the question to join this up with the onboard internet connection to get a more accurate picture of the actual arrival times. Many modern trains already do things along these lines, for example the 80x fleets provide live maintenance data back to Hitachi, so it would hardly be rocket science.

The fact that the industry currently relies on little more than educated guesses when deciding how much to pay is hardly optimal. Some people end up overpaid, which is money the industry could save. Others are wrongly denied or underpaid compensation, causing a further loss of goodwill (for those who have any) and more importantly a cost to process the inevitable appeal.

So you are suggesting that TOCs download OTMR in order to confirm the arrival times at stations?
Good luck with that. How many extra staff would be needed to analyse & record the data ?
@Llanigraham has stated up thread where the data comes from. This is from the contractually agreed Rail industry performance monitoring systems.
if you wish them to use ‘third party’/non-contractuel data raise the issue with your MP to get it changed.
i suspect that the industry spies involved in these issues are enjoying popcorn reading this ‘discussion

 

[Kilopylae]

Wow. That is a lot!

But eminently believable.

Appropriately enough, given the topic of this thread, I have a pending DR claim where the train was delayed by only just two hours (RTT says 128 minutes). If Southeastern accepts that as 2 hours, I'll get £150.00, otherwise, only £70.00!

Perverse incentive or not, as the train passed through stations with +119 on RTT, it's only human to hope it will pick up another 5 minutes' delay when that could be worth seventy pounds to you...

 

[35B]

So you are suggesting that TOCs download OTMR in order to confirm the arrival times at stations?
Good luck with that. How many extra staff would be needed to analyse & record the data ?

If (and it's a big if) the downloads can be made to happen and co-ordinated effectively, the extra staffing load should be minimal - it will simply be a matter of corroborating the arrival time against the OTMR door open data to verify escalations. That shouldn't require any more effort to analyse or record the data.

 

[Kilopylae]

If (and it's a big if) the downloads can be made to happen and co-ordinated effectively, the extra staffing load should be minimal - it will simply be a matter of corroborating the arrival time against the OTMR door open data to verify escalations. That shouldn't require any more effort to analyse or record the data.

This strikes me as over-complicating the situation somewhat, when a stock +1 min 30s or so could be added to the time the train entered the station. The special circumstances where a train is both (a) right on the exact DR threshold and (b) held at the platform, or otherwise after having entered the station, with the doors unreleased for a significantly unusual length of time, must be so vanishingly rare that they can be dealt with by a human being.

 

[styles]

The rights to alternative transport/hotels already exist and apply equally to all TOCs. The issue is with the railway's frequent refusal to comply with those rights. Without a fundamental culture change and/or ORR enforcement action for the licence breach that a failure to comply represents, I cannot see anything changing.

Precisely why I think responsibility for it should be taken away from the TOCs.

You could even then print on your tickets something like, "Delayed? Call 0800 123 4567", and have an extended hours line for sorting it all out.

 

[NeakPed]

If (and it's a big if) the downloads can be made to happen and co-ordinated effectively, the extra staffing load should be minimal - it will simply be a matter of corroborating the arrival time against the OTMR door open data to verify escalations. That shouldn't require any more effort to analyse or record the data

Unless things have changed in recent years, OTMR data has to be physically downloaded to a card/memory stick. It cannot be done remotely. Hardly a minimal task.

 

[Watershed]

So you are suggesting that TOCs download OTMR in order to confirm the arrival times at stations?
Good luck with that. How many extra staff would be needed to analyse & record the data ?

This strikes me as over-complicating the situation somewhat, when a stock +1 min 30s or so could be added to the time the train entered the station. The special circumstances where a train is both (a) right on the exact DR threshold and (b) held at the platform, or otherwise after having entered the station, with the doors unreleased for a significantly unusual length of time, must be so vanishingly rare that they can be dealt with by a human being.

I thought I was clear but to reiterate, my suggestion is not that data should be manually downloaded. Rather, there is already remote access and monitoring of onboard parameters for maintenance purposes on most modern trains, many have live crowding data, and all already have OTMR.

These systems should be combined to disseminate (in live time) the door release data which the OTMR captures. This would serve as the new 'single source of truth' of when a train actually arrived or departed; train describers/track circuit berths were never intended to be used that way and are therefore inherently inaccurate, but could be used as a fallback if there is no data from the train.

@Llanigraham has stated up thread where the data comes from. This is from the contractually agreed Rail industry performance monitoring systems.
if you wish them to use ‘third party’/non-contractuel data raise the issue with your MP to get it changed.
i suspect that the industry spies involved in these issues are enjoying popcorn reading this ‘discussion

It is only 'contractually agreed' for the purposes of the track access agreement and KPIs - i.e. internally within the industry. The customer is not a party to any of that; their agreement is the NRCoT - which does not define 'delay' or 'arrival' and so these terms take their ordinary meaning, i.e. what actually happened, which may be something different.

If the industry wants internal metrics to become the contractual method of measuring delays for the purposes of Delay Repay then it needs to say so in the contract!

 

[NeakPed]

If the industry wants internal metrics to become the contractual method of measuring delays for the purposes of Delay Repay then it needs to say so in the contract!

If you want door opening times to be the contractual method of recording delays, I suggest you campaign for it. To me, arrival is the time the train comes to a stand, not the time i alighted from it - would you claim an extra 2 minutes because a lot of people were in front of you with luggage ? (I suspect some on here would try it).
i do not believe that there is anywhere within Delay Repay that stipulates how arrival times are
measured. Therefore the Reil industry will use internal systems for that purpose.
If you want to get that changed, dont whinge on here - lobby for it.

 

[Sonic1234]

What's the incentive to improve reporting of delays, when it will result in the railway paying out more?

A train arrives 29 min late according to RTT, but 30 min late when the doors open. 100 people are delayed:
- 50 don't claim
- 35 claim, get 15 min delay repay, don't really think about it
- 10 claim, get 15 min delay repay, think "oh, I'm sure it was longer, I must be mistaken"
- 3 claim, know it was wrong, doesn't feel it's worth the effort making a fuss for a few pounds
- 1 knows it was wrong, appeals, gets fobbed off with something about "industry data", goes away
- 1 makes a big issue out of it and finally gets their 30 minute delay repay

You could have paid off that 1 complainant many times over with the money saved.

 

[yorkie]

This strikes me as over-complicating the situation somewhat, when a stock +1 min 30s or so could be added to the time the train entered the station. The special circumstances where a train is both (a) right on the exact DR threshold and (b) held at the platform, or otherwise after having entered the station, with the doors unreleased for a significantly unusual length of time, must be so vanishingly rare that they can be dealt with by a human being.

This would be far too pragmatic for anti-passenger companies, such as LNER (who can do no wrong in the eyes of DfT), who are very reluctant to accept 30/31 min delays and will do anything they can to disappoint customers and reject the claim on the basis that it was really 29 minutes and however many seconds.

If you want door opening times to be the contractual method of recording delays, I suggest you campaign for it. To me, arrival is the time the train comes to a stand, not the time i alighted from it - would you claim an extra 2 minutes because a lot of people were in front of you with luggage ? (I suspect some on here would try it).
i do not believe that there is anywhere within Delay Repay that stipulates how arrival times are
measured. Therefore the Reil industry will use internal systems for that purpose.
If you want to get that changed, dont whinge on here - lobby for it.

What exactly do you mean by "campaign" or "lobby" for it? This forum is read by the relevant people in the industry who could make a difference.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Aug 2026 ==

What's the incentive to improve reporting of delays, when it will result in the railway paying out more?

A train arrives 29 min late according to RTT, but 30 min late when the doors open. 100 people are delayed:
- 50 don't claim
- 35 claim, get 15 min delay repay, don't really think about it
- 10 claim, get 15 min delay repay, think "oh, I'm sure it was longer, I must be mistaken"
- 3 claim, know it was wrong, doesn't feel it's worth the effort making a fuss for a few pounds
- 1 knows it was wrong, appeals, gets fobbed off with something about "industry data", goes away
- 1 makes a big issue out of it and finally gets their 30 minute delay repay

You could have paid off that 1 complainant many times over with the money saved.

Companies like LNER work on the basis that most people whose claim is rejected will give up, and of those who don't give up, I think they'd rather continue arguing with them than give in, on principle.

I must admit I've given up with them, because it just wasn't worth the effort. I know they don't value me as a customer, but they know that I have no real alternative choice most of the time, so the status quo prevails.

(I use LNER as my example from a relatively recent experience, and because DfT/LNER seem to work closely together, but the same is true of many other TOCs too)

 

[redreni]

It is only 'contractually agreed' for the purposes of the track access agreement and KPIs - i.e. internally within the industry. The customer is not a party to any of that; their agreement is the NRCoT - which does not define 'delay' or 'arrival' and so these terms take their ordinary meaning, i.e. what actually happened, which may be something different.

If the industry wants internal metrics to become the contractual method of measuring delays for the purposes of Delay Repay then it needs to say so in the contract!

Quite.

Although as a consumer weighing up if it's worth paying a 3 figure sum to be conveyed somewhere, the compensation arrangements in the event of a delay may well be a relevant consideration for some people.

It is not normal in any contract to say "if x happens party A will pay party B y, but party A shall be the sole arbiter of whether x has happened". If I'm arriving at the destination close to a delay threshold I always record the arrival - there is very seldom a material difference between my timing of when the doors opened and the industry's timing of when the train arrived, but there is normally some difference. Most TOCs will reject claims for being a quarter of a minute below the threshold even though their timings are not accurate enough for them to be sure the delay wasn't actually at or above the threshold. This does, I'm afraid, need to be capable of being challenged otherwise the passenger is being asked to agree to an unfair term - passengers have no control over what the industry data says about train arrival times. The system might say anything.

 

[Sonic1234]

Most TOCs will reject claims for being a quarter of a minute below the threshold even though their timings are not accurate enough for them to be sure the delay wasn't actually at or above the threshold

I had 2 like this with GTR. One got auto rejected by the software, the other claim got referred to a human who accepted it. There is some humanity out there!

 

[Starmill]

It does reduce the cost of travel somewhat - I've had several hundred pounds reimbursed already this year. I'd much rather be on time.

Precisely. I may occasionally get all of my money back from a ticket, sometimes a costlier one and sometimes a very small value one.

But what I never get anything back for is the hours of time I have to waste sitting around doing nothing at my destination, should the train for once arrive on time, which is unavoidable because the published schedules are so frequently works of fiction. If the railway is to be used for a longer journey, a delay must be assumed. Sometimes a long one of 1-2 hours.

When I get some money back in the from the former cases it just goes part of the way to offsetting my losses in the latter. To put it another way, I would, like you, be far "richer" if the trains just ran punctually and reliably, and I never received any cash compensation. Unfortunately that isn't the world we live in.

 

[redreni]

If you want door opening times to be the contractual method of recording delays, I suggest you campaign for it. To me, arrival is the time the train comes to a stand, not the time i alighted from it - would you claim an extra 2 minutes because a lot of people were in front of you with luggage ? (I suspect some on here would try it).
i do not believe that there is anywhere within Delay Repay that stipulates how arrival times are
measured. Therefore the Reil industry will use internal systems for that purpose.
If you want to get that changed, dont whinge on here - lobby for it.

What if the difference between coming to a halt at the platform and releasing the doors is 40 minutes?

Nobody's trying to include waiting time while others alight in front of them. Doors opening is considered by most people to be the right measure because until the doors open, you cannot leave the train and it hardly matters where the train is; you haven't arrived.